DIP 1003 Formal Review

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 13:50:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> All I'm arguing for is that if we're removing body as a 
> keyword, there's no need to replace it with function or any 
> other word in contracts. We can simply deprecate its use as a 
> keyword and not replace it, letting it then be used as a normal 
> identifier in whatever fashion makes the most sense.

+1, Makes total sense to me. So simple. I'm for this.

> Actually changing the overall syntax of contracts is a whole 
> other can of worms.

Yeah. One thing at a time.